Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34742 of 2018 Applicant :- Smt. Panwai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Narayan Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today in the Court is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.212 of 2018, under Section 304-B, 498A, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Kotwali Mehrauni, District-Lalitpur is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased against the applicant and three other family members. The applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The allegation is that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the members of her matrimonial house in connection with the demand of additional dowry and on account of this, she was tortured till her death. As per post-mortem report, the cause of the death is on account of drowning and it cannot be said that the applicant is the person behind this unfortunate incident. The husband of the deceased is languishing in jail. There is no dying declaration of the deceased. The applicant is in jail since 08.08. 2018, having no criminal antecedents to her credit.
Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the relationship of the applicant with the deceased and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant-Smt. Panwai, involved in case crime no.212 of 2018, under Section 304-B, 498A, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Kotwali Mehrauni, District-Lalitpur be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on her bail so granted by this court.
Order Date :- 19.9.2018 Sumit S